Maria Romero v. Union Pacific Railroad

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA JESUS ROMERO, No. 20-15060
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00108-JAS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Maria Jesus Romero appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her action alleging claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act
(“FELA”) arising from a work-related accident. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Schmidt v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 605
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 686, 688 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Romero’s claims
because Romero failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether her
accident or injuries were connected to Union Pacific’s conduct or facilities. See
Claar v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 29 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 1994) (a claim under
FELA requires a plaintiff to “demonstrate some causal connection between a
defendant’s negligence and their injuries”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Romero leave to
file a third amended complaint because Romero already had multiple opportunities
to amend, and the addition of new claims would cause prejudice and delay. See
Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 1999) (denial of leave to amend is warranted if amendment “would cause
prejudice to the opposing party . . . or creates undue delay”); see also Chodos v.
West Publ’g Co., Inc., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court
has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent
motions to amend is particularly broad” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000)
(standard of review).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
2 20-15060
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-15060